REDRESS and Arry, two international human rights organisations,1 are submitting this request for urgent action regarding the arbitrary arrest and ongoing detention of Mrs Jalila Khamis Koko (the
‘Victim’). The Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) arbitrarily arrested the Victim on 14 March 2012 in Khartoum, Sudan. She is still detained in the Omdurman Women’s Prison in Khartoum.

NISS arbitrarily arrested and detained the Victim on account of her activities as a human rights defender and specifically for the support she provided to internally displaced persons from South Kordofan State/ Nuba Mountains, where an armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) has been ongoing since 5 June 2011. The Victim has been kept in conditions of detention contrary to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and was subjected to death threats amounting to torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment (‘ill-treatment’) by NISS officers. There is a real risk that the Victim will face further torture and/ or ill-treatment in the future. This request for urgent action
is therefore also shared with the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences and the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan as it engages their mandates.

We respectfully request that your office, in collaboration with the offices of the other Special Rapporteurs and the Independent Expert, urgently inquire into this matter and request the Government of Sudan to ensure that Mrs Jalila Khamis Koko is released immediately and unconditionally; that a full and independent investigation into her arrest, detention, torture and ill- treatment is commenced immediately; and that those responsible are prosecuted where sufficient evidence is available and subjected to adequate punishment.

We are ready to provide you with further information or to clarify any issues in relation to this matter if needed.

Yours sincerely,

Dadimos Haile

Interim Director, REDRESS

Cc:

Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, Mr. Juan Mendez, via e-mail at: sr-torture@ohchr.org.

Since 5 June 2011, armed hostilities have been ongoing between the army of North Sudan, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), and forces aligned with South Sudan’s army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in the Southern Kordofan State (‘South Kordofan’)/ Nuba Mountains, Sudan.

The conflict has reportedly been marked by large scale human rights violations committed primarily by the SAF with the support of the Popular Defence Forces (PDF) and the NISS, predominantly against civilians in South Kordofan/ Nuba Mountains. The SAF, together with the PDF, is alleged to be responsible for widespread killings through indiscriminate bombing attacks, arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, particularly of civilians, as well as wide scale destruction of property. These violations are the subject of a complaint brought by several organisations that is currently pending before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights.2

The conflict is also reportedly characterised by Sudanese security forces’ campaign against civilians of Nuba origin in and beyond South Kordofan, involving mass arrests and enforced disappearances.3
Reports by human rights organisations suggest that the Sudanese security forces are increasingly targeting human rights defenders, particularly women who had been calling for an end to hostilities
and for an investigation into the human rights violations committed.4

The Victim is a member of the Nuba Mountains Women Organisation and affiliated with the SPLM- N. After the war in South Kordofan broke out on 5 June 2011, the Victim, together with other activists, started assisting internally displaced persons fleeing from the Nuba Mountains and provided shelter and humanitarian aid (food and clothes by collecting money and items from individuals, finding families to host people in their homes). The Victim herself hosted over twenty individuals in her house in Khartoum.5

IV ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

IV.1. Arbitrary arrest and detention a. Factual background
On 14 March 2012 at approximately 12.30am, an armed group of seventeen men came to the Victim’s house in the Alshajara area in Southern Khartoum. They arrived in a ‘Thatcher’ truck and a double cabin truck. Ten men went inside the Victim’s house, while the other seven were waiting in the truck outside. Four men were wearing NISS uniforms, the others were wearing plain clothes, among them two high ranking officers who later interrogated the Victim at the NISS offices. The officers ordered the Victim to come with them, and did not allow her to change, even though she was in her pyjamas. The Victim’s son and her neighbour, who were sleeping outside the house, witnessed the Victim’s arrest. The NISS threatened both with arrest when they tried to assist the Victim.

The NISS officers took the Victim in her pyjamas to the NISS offices in Bahri, North Khartoum, near Shandi bus station. Three NISS officers, including two officers who had been present during her arrest, started interrogating the Victim. The NISS officers accused her of meeting with persons affiliated to the communist party and interrogated her about her links to an officer of the SPLM-N called Musa Kojou from South Kordofan. She was also accused of playing a role in agitating for war in South Kordofan/ Nuba Mountains, and of providing information about the political situation in Khartoum to her son in South Kordofan for it to be shared with the SPLM-N. NISS officers also
interrogated her about her ties with Mrs. Nazik Kabalo, a human rights activist working for Arry who

had been documenting violations committed in Nuba Mountains.6 Mrs Kabalo had been arrested herself on 28 February 2012 and had to flee the country on 1 March 2012 following her release.7

Throughout her detention, NISS officers interrogated the Victim about her human rights work, including for the Nuba Mountains Women Organization and other organisations working in South Kordofan, the type of work of these organizations in Kadugli (the regional capital of South Kordofan) and other parts in South Kordofan as well as the Victim’s relationship to international organisations. The NISS officers accused the Victim of receiving $ 12,000 USD from these organisations. They also interrogated the Victim about a video statement in which she had called on the Government of Sudan and the international community to stop the war in South Kordofan and to address the
humanitarian situation in the region.8

During the first three days of her detention, the Victim was detained in a cell within the NISS offices which she had to share with several men. NISS officials did not provide her with clothing, even though the Victim was still in her pyjamas. The Victim was transferred on 17 March 2012 to a section of Omdurman women prison that is controlled by the NISS where she was held in incommunicado detention until 23 March 2012, when she was allowed to meet with her husband. On 29 July 2012, the NISS transferred the Victim to the criminal section of the Omdurman Women’s Prison, where she was able to see her lawyers for the first time since her arrest.

b. Current situation

The Victim is still in detention in Omdurman Women’s Prison. Throughout her detention, NISS officials threatened to charge her with various crimes against the state, including crimes that are subject to the death penalty. On 23 September 2012, NISS officials told the Victim that she will be transferred to Kober prison to be executed. The officials also provided the Victim with several dates for her trial at the central Khartoum Criminal Court on 23 August, 30 August and 23 September
2012, yet the Victim was not presented to a judge on any of these dates. On 10 December 2012, the Omdurman prison record department informed the Victim that she would be released, yet she was instead brought before a judge of the Khartoum North Criminal Court, who informed her that she will be tried on 13 December 2012. The judge also informed her for the first time that she is facing
charges under Articles 64 (provoking hatred against or amongst sects) and 66 (publication of false

6 GIRIFINA, ‘Crackdown on a Female Activist’, 5 March 2012, at http://www.girifna.com/4939.
7 Protection Request made by Nazik Kabalo to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Cairo Office, File Number 555-12C-03271.
8 See here for the Victim’s video statement, uploaded on youtube on 15 June 2011:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9EPmxqMLfo&feature=relmfu; the video was produced by human rights activist and blogger Najlaa Seed
Ahmed, who was arrested on 20 June 2012. On 21 June 2012 the NISS brought the Victim to the office where NISS officers interrogated Najlaa
Seed Ahmed. In the office, they asked the Victim and Mrs Ahmed about the campaign against the war and the humanitarian support they provided for internally displaced people who came to Khartoum after the war, and from where they received the money to fund their activities, including their relationship with international organizations.

news) of the Criminal Code of 1991.9 On 13 December 2012, the judge informed her and her lawyers that she was also charged with Article 50 (undermining of the constitutional system), Article
51 (waging war against the State), and Article 21 (joint acts in execution of a criminal conspiracy) of the Criminal Code of 1991. The offences stipulated in both Articles 50 and 51 are subject to the death penalty. Articles 50 and 51 in particular have been used repeatedly to prosecute human rights defenders, journalists and opposition members.10

The trial scheduled for 13 December 2012 was postponed as the complainant (NISS) and the investigator in charge failed to attend since the court did not summon them. The trial initially postponed to take place on 18 December 2012, has been postponed again for similar reasons to 27
December 2012. It was the fifth time that a trial had been scheduled only to be subsequently
postponed. While the Victim’s lawyers are able to see their client, they have been denied access to her case file, which has prevented them from adequately preparing the Victim’s defense. In combination with the continued detention and the seriousness of the charges against her, this leaves the Victim in a state of anxiety and anguish as to her future.

c. Unlawfulness of the arrest and detention

At the time of the arrest on 14 March 2012, the NISS officers failed to produce an arrest warrant and to charge the Victim. It was only on 10 December 2012 that she was charged for the first time. Her request for a lawyer, made on 14 March 2012, was denied and she was only allowed to see a lawyer on 29 July 2012, more than four months after her arrest. She was brought before a judge on
16 October 2012, after more than seven months following her arrest. The judge, rather than
reviewing the lawfulness of her detention, interrogated her about her voluntary work, and the work of the Nuba Mountains Women Organisation; yet again, the victim was not charged.

Lawyers in Khartoum submitted several requests to the Attorney General to charge the Victim or to issue an unconditional release order. The General Attorney repeatedly replied verbally to these requests that the investigation is ongoing and that the Victim would not be released.

It is evident that this is contrary to the right to liberty and security as set out in Article 9 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, which are also an integral part of Sudan’s Bill of Rights by virtue of

9 Article 64 of the Criminal Code of 1991: ‘Whoever provokes hatred, contempt or animosity, against any sect, or between sects, by reason of ethnic, colour, or language differences, in a manner which exposes the public peace to danger, shall be punished, with imprisonment, for a term, not exceeding two years, or with fine, or with both.’ Article 66: ‘Whoever publishes, or broadcasts any news item, rumour or report, knowing that the same is incorrect, intending thereby to cause apprehension, or panic to the public, or threat to the public peace, or diminution of the prestige of the State, shall be punished, with imprisonment, for a term, not exceeding six months, or with fine, or with both.’
10 See Amin M. Medani, ‘A Legacy of Institutionalized Repression: Criminal Law and Justice in Sudan’, in Lutz Oette (ed.), Criminal Law Reform
and Transitional Justice: Human Rights Perspectives for Sudan (Ashgate, Farnham, 2011), pp.67-88, at pp. 70-71.

Article 27 (3) of the Interim National Constitution.11 The extension of the Victim’s detention was also contrary to Sudanese law. As the Victim was arrested by NISS officers, the National Security Act (NSA) 2010 applies. According to the NSA, which itself falls short of international standards,12 a suspect can be detained without judicial review for a period of four months and fifteen days.13
According to the Sudanese Criminal Procedure Code of 1991, which started to apply after the expiry of the four months and fifteen days period, i.e. on 29 July 2012, the Victim’s continued detention should have been subject to weekly judicial review and should not have exceeded six months in total, save upon the approval of the competent judicial organ.14 In the present case, the Victim was not brought promptly before a judge to review the lawfulness of her arrest and detention as it took over seven months before she was heard by a judge, who, however, did interrogate her further rather than inquire into the lawfulness of her arrest and detention.

d. Arbitrariness of the arrest and detention

The grounds for the Victim’s arrest and detention were not clear as the NISS officials failed to inform the Victim of the reasons, and did not charge her. The type of questions asked by the NISS officers during several interrogations of the Victim, pertaining to the Victim’s human rights activities and the work of human rights organisations, as well as the Victim’s prominent role in working to protect civilians from Nuba Mountains during the ongoing conflict strongly suggest that she was arrested and detained in order to intimidate if not punish her and to prevent her from continuing her work as a human rights defender.

The Victim’s arrest and detention does not have any legal basis, and is contrary to the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘Declaration’). The Declaration provides that States have a responsibility to protect human rights defenders from, inter alia, “arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration.”15

e. Incommunicado detention and solitary confinement

11 See on Sudan’s Legal Framework , Sudan Democracy First Group, REDRESS and African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies, Comments to Sudan’s 4th and 5th Periodic Report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Article 5 of the African Charter: Prohibition of torture, cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment and treatment, April 2012, at http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/1204%20Comments%20to%20Sudans%204th%20and%205th%20Periodic%20Report.pdf
12 Ibid; see also on recent practice that shows how the National Security Law facilitates arbitrary arrest and detention, Report of the
independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, Mohamed Chande Othman, A/HRC/18/40, 22 August 2011, para.17.
13 Article 50 (1) (e), (f), (g) and (h). National Security Act 2010.
14 Section 79 (3) Criminal Procedural Code 1991.
15
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Proctect Universally Recognized
Human Ri9ghts and Fundamental Freedoms, General Assembly Resolution 53/144, 9 December 1998, Article 12 (2), at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/freedom.htm.

The Victim was not informed about the reasons for her arrest, and denied access to a lawyer until
29 July 2012. The authorities did not respond to requests from her family to visit her and held the Victim in incommunicado detention for the first nine days following the arrest. It was only then that her husband was allowed to visit her to bring her clothes. From 17 March 2012 to 29 July 2012, the Victim was detained in solitary confinement in the Omdurman prison in a section controlled by the NISS. During more than four months, the Victim was not allowed any visits from her children, and could only see her husband for very short periods of time. She also did not have access to a lawyer.

While the Victim has since been transferred to Omdurman women’s prison, she does not know what will happen following her trial and whether she will be returned to the section controlled by the NISS, which may expose her to further prolonged solitary confinement and/or incommunicado detention contrary to the right to liberty and security.

IV. 2. Torture and ill-treatment a. Conditions of detention
Following her arrest on 14 March 2012, NISS officers interrogated the Victim about her human rights activities and verbally abused her, calling her a ‘Nubian slave’ and described her as ‘trash’. The officers rejected her request for a change of clothes even though she was in a pyjama and had to share her cell with several men for the first three days of her detention. She was then taken to a small and narrow cell in a section of the Omdurman prison controlled by the NISS where she was held in conditions that clearly fell short of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. There was no natural light in the cell, and the Victim lost her orientation and did not know whether it was day or night. She was only allowed to leave her cell during the time of prayer and was also only then allowed to use a bathroom. The food was of poor quality and the water at times contaminated, resulting in the Victim developing stomach pain on several occasions. The Victim’s health deteriorated significantly in the NISS controlled sector of Omdurman prison: she is now suffering from hypertension and rheumatism, which is particularly painful during the winter season. While she received some treatment for her hypertension from the general prison doctor,
she does not have access to specialised treatment and continues to be in pain.16

b. Torture and ill-treatment

There is credible information suggesting that the Victim has been subjected to torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment (‘ill-treatment’) by NISS officers. Najlaa Seed Ahmed, a human rights defender who had been with the Victim in detention, reported after her release that
the Victim was very weak and had been put ‘under pressure’ to testify against Najlaa Seed Ahmed.

As she was concerned for the Victim’s health and safety, she called for the ‘international community’ to intervene.17 Other human rights defenders who had been arrested by NISS officials for their work on South Kordofan and who had been released also testified about the practice of torture and ill-treatment by NISS officials.18 In the present case, NISS officers verbally abused the Victim and continuously threatened the Victim that she will be charged with crimes against the state which are subject to the death penalty. On 23 September 2012, NISS officials threatened the Victim that they would take her to Kober prison for execution. It is recognised in international jurisprudence that ‘a threat can constitute torture’, or ill-treatment depending on the circumstances, and it is immaterial whether or not the threat is carried out if it is of such a nature that it causes severe mental pain or suffering to the person threatened with serious physical violence,19 as was the case concerning the threats faced by the Victim. The threats, continued uncertainty about her fate, and prolonged detention without charges and trial leaves the Victim in a state of heightened anxiety and fear.

c. Incommunicado and solitary confinement

As recognised in international jurisprudence and by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, incommunicado detention, as well as solitary confinement, particularly if prolonged (in the present case, incommunicado detention lasted nine days, while solitary confinement in poor conditions lasted over three months), fall within the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and therefore violate internationally recognised standards binding on Sudan (see IV 1. d. above).20

V ALLEGED PERPETRATORS

Individual officers working for the NISS are responsible for the Victim’s unlawful and arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment. Judicial authorities, including Sudan’s Attorney General, are responsible for the Victim’s continued unlawful detention.

VI ACTION BY THE AUTHORITIES

The Victim’s lawyers requested the Attorney General to ensure that the Victim is either charged or
unconditionally released. The Attorney General verbally rejected these requests without providing

17 See testimony of Najlaa Seed Ahmad, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JX-nS6Yg1Q, 26 May 2012.
18 See for testimonies from released detainees, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLejSBapRBo; see also GIRIFNA on testimonies by other
human rights defenders who had been arrested during the same time, and for similar reasons, and have since been released:http://www.girifna.com/6723
19 European Commission of Human Rights, Greek case (1969) 12 YB 170, EComHR, p.461; Campbell and Cosans v. UK, (1982) 4 EHRR 293, para
26; UN Human Rights Council and Commission on Human Rights resolutions ‘Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment’, Resolution 8/8, para. 7(b); UN doc. 2005/39, para. 8; Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: New Zealand,
UN doc. A/48/44(SUPP) 26/06/1993, para. 148.
20 See Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin, The Special Rapporteur on
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak; The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention represented by its Vice-Chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances represented by its Vice- Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010, particularly paras.31-35.

sufficient reasons. Similarly, the Government of Sudan failed to respond to urgent action requests issued by international organisations calling for the authorities either to charge the Victim with a recognisable criminal offence or to release her immediately.21

During more than nine months of detention, the Victim was presented to a judge on only three occasions. To date, no trial has taken place. These delays raise concerns over their compatibility with the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In addition, if the trial proceeds – the new trial date has been set for 18 December 2012 – the Victim will not have a fair trial as the lack of access of the Victim’s defense lawyers to the case file resulted in their inability to adequately prepare her defence.

VII LINK BETWEEN VIOLATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS WORK

The Victim was arrested following her human rights activities for internally displaced persons from the Nuba Mountains who had fled to Khartoum. NISS officials interrogated her about her human rights work and that of other organisations. According to Nazik Kabolo, who NISS officials had arbitrarily arrested on 28 Feburary 2012, the Victim was accused by NISS officials of working with Arry and specifically with Nazik Kabolo on the human rights violations committed in Nuba Mountains.22 Amnesty International considers the Victim to be ‘a prisoner of conscience, held solely for her humanitarian work and for the peaceful expression of her views.’23 The Victim’s arrest and detention form part of a larger pattern of a systematic and targeted campaign of harassment of human rights defenders working on South Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains.24

VIII INFORMATION ON THE ORGANISATIONS SUBMITTING THIS REQUEST

The Redress Trust (‘REDRESS’) is an international human rights non-governmental organisation based in London with a mandate to assist torture survivors to prevent their further torture and to seek justice and other forms of reparation. Further information on REDRESS can be found onwww.redress.org

Arry is an independent, non-governmental, non-partisan and non-profit organisation dedicated to the promotion and the protection of human rights, peace building and development in Sudan,
particularly in the conflict areas such as Blue Nile, Darfur and the Nuba mountains. It was